commerce_product_graph_query

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds some useful scoping context: the action routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under the caller's JWT, tenant, and company scope. However, it does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond that, and with destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, it is notable that the description feels neutral about side effects. It does not contradict the annotations, so it earns a passing score but misses an opportunity to warn that 'query' may still trigger non-read behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact, front-loaded, and uses a clear Args list without filler. It loses a point because the opening sentence is nearly a restatement of the tool name and the opportunity to add domain specificity is skipped.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This generic wrapper description would fit any commerce agent action and fails to explain what a product graph query is or when to use it. Even though an output schema exists, the description itself leaves too much to inference: the agent cannot tell whether this queries product relationships, catalog data, or something else, nor how it differs from the many commerce sibling tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema provides only parameter names and defaults, so the description carries the semantic burden. It does meaningfully clarify that `message` is a free-text objective and `inputs` is an optional JSON string of structured inputs. This is helpful, though it leaves out what kind of structured inputs the action accepts or whether any JSON keys are expected.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description essentially restates the tool name: 'Run the commerce domain agent action `product_graph_query`.' It gives dispatch mechanics—JWT, tenant, company scope—but never explains what a product graph query actually does, what it returns, or what domain problem it solves. An agent would have to guess the purpose from the name alone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternative tools. The routing context describes the mechanism but not the decision criteria for choosing this tool over sibling tools like commerce_chat, commerce_product_analysis, or generic dispatch_domain_agent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.